Coronavirus - Data Analysis Thread
Discussion
purplepenguin said:
But they borrowed money to pay for them.
The cost of the vaccines is at least an order-of-magnitude* less than the other s
te that the government is shelling out on right now:-- £30+ billion on Track-and-trace that has never worked properly
- £100+ billion planned for these so-called twice-weekly tests that are self-administered (if at all) by those who are asymptomatic (and in the current, declining-virus state are far more likely to stay so)...and therefore of massively questionable value. On top of the multi-billions spent on the (mostly useful) tests already administered.
- £1 billion (?) on the white-elephant Nightingale Hospitals that have now been quietly shut-down after never being needed. And despite being shut-down we're still being told that the roadmap has to be gradual to " protect the NHS** "
...and then there's furlough costs (real and fraudulent). There's the multiple PPE scandals. There's the economic hit from everything that (has and hasn't) happened over the last 12 months. There's god-knows what other pork-barrel s
t that's going through behind the scenes because all the government has to do is trot out yet another Covid briefing to distract the useless-fking-media from any REAL news.Sorry Elysium, rant over...
* Estimated at c.100m doses x £30-100/dose = c.£5 billion.
** That self-same organisation that successive Tories have underfunded and undermined at every turn, note. And no, I never have and probably never will vote Labour.
Elysium said:
Latitude seems to make a big difference, which suggests to me that daylight is important.
It's well known that UV damages the RNA in viruses, and indeed UV sterilisation is a thing....which also contributes to why "outdoor" cultures have suffered less-severe outbreaks than the 'civilised' (sic) western world...
purplepenguin said:
High population density?
Would need to map by region, but not all of Brazil is high density and all of it seems to be challenged:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-566...
havoc said:
Elysium said:
Latitude seems to make a big difference, which suggests to me that daylight is important.
It's well known that UV damages the RNA in viruses, and indeed UV sterilisation is a thing....which also contributes to why "outdoor" cultures have suffered less-severe outbreaks than the 'civilised' (sic) western world...
https://scitechdaily.com/sunlight-linked-with-lowe...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/b...
vaud said:
havoc said:
It's well known that UV damages the RNA in viruses, and indeed UV sterilisation is a thing.
...which also contributes to why "outdoor" cultures have suffered less-severe outbreaks than the 'civilised' (sic) western world...
Brazil?...which also contributes to why "outdoor" cultures have suffered less-severe outbreaks than the 'civilised' (sic) western world...
Elysium
As you seem to have one of the better grasps of the data, do you think it is possible to figure out where the NHS 1 in 3 are asymptomatic and can spread it comes from?
This has come about because our friends down the road (who seemingly revel in being able to cart the whole family off to a testing centre at the drop of a hat when one of them gets a sniffle) has just ordered her LFT tests and is straight on our cases about "have we ordered any yet?". My answer is of course no, as there is little need. But I'm telling her yes for an easy life. But I just know the reason I'll be given for getting them will be this 1 in 3 thing.
I think its important to try get a grasp on this because it feels like this 1 in 3 will be the stick used to get people testing regularly because it sounds scary.
The last paper I read on this was a study of studies. After discussing the fact that "asymptomatic" is quite a large grey area because no one defines it in quite the same way, they came to the conclusion that true asymptomatic cases are 17% (about 1 in 6). Of those that are truly asymptomatic, their ability to spread is much reduced because their lack of symptoms kills off some of the spreading mechanisms, making them less likely to spread (about 40% less likely).
https://jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/full/10.3138/j...
that is the paper, I think, they also note that asymptomatic was found to be higher in aged/in-care populations than young populations. They show asymptomatic rate between 4 and 40% but once they sort the wheat from the chaff on how to define it, conclude that asymptomatic cases are about 1 in 6.
But, I don't think I've seen anything beyond that yet that has truly got a handle on asymptomatic spread so how anyone, really, can come out with definitive statements like 1 in 3, eludes me. Of course, as described above, the NHS's 1 in 3 misses off the other half of the story in that even if you are asymptomatic, your ability to actually spread it is likely much reduced.
As you seem to have one of the better grasps of the data, do you think it is possible to figure out where the NHS 1 in 3 are asymptomatic and can spread it comes from?
This has come about because our friends down the road (who seemingly revel in being able to cart the whole family off to a testing centre at the drop of a hat when one of them gets a sniffle) has just ordered her LFT tests and is straight on our cases about "have we ordered any yet?". My answer is of course no, as there is little need. But I'm telling her yes for an easy life. But I just know the reason I'll be given for getting them will be this 1 in 3 thing.
I think its important to try get a grasp on this because it feels like this 1 in 3 will be the stick used to get people testing regularly because it sounds scary.
The last paper I read on this was a study of studies. After discussing the fact that "asymptomatic" is quite a large grey area because no one defines it in quite the same way, they came to the conclusion that true asymptomatic cases are 17% (about 1 in 6). Of those that are truly asymptomatic, their ability to spread is much reduced because their lack of symptoms kills off some of the spreading mechanisms, making them less likely to spread (about 40% less likely).
https://jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/full/10.3138/j...
that is the paper, I think, they also note that asymptomatic was found to be higher in aged/in-care populations than young populations. They show asymptomatic rate between 4 and 40% but once they sort the wheat from the chaff on how to define it, conclude that asymptomatic cases are about 1 in 6.
But, I don't think I've seen anything beyond that yet that has truly got a handle on asymptomatic spread so how anyone, really, can come out with definitive statements like 1 in 3, eludes me. Of course, as described above, the NHS's 1 in 3 misses off the other half of the story in that even if you are asymptomatic, your ability to actually spread it is likely much reduced.
Elysium said:
Coincidentally, this exact point has been picked up in the news today:
https://scitechdaily.com/sunlight-linked-with-lowe...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/b...
Took 'em long enough...scientifically speaking, UV-vs-viruses is about as old-news as radioactivity.https://scitechdaily.com/sunlight-linked-with-lowe...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/b...
Otispunkmeyer said:
Of course, as described above, the NHS's 1 in 3 misses off the other half of the story in that even if you are asymptomatic, your ability to actually spread it is likely much reduced.
Lies, damn lies, statistics...
...oh, and incompetent control-freak governments...
Otispunkmeyer said:
Elysium
As you seem to have one of the better grasps of the data, do you think it is possible to figure out where the NHS 1 in 3 are asymptomatic and can spread it comes from?
This has come about because our friends down the road (who seemingly revel in being able to cart the whole family off to a testing centre at the drop of a hat when one of them gets a sniffle) has just ordered her LFT tests and is straight on our cases about "have we ordered any yet?". My answer is of course no, as there is little need. But I'm telling her yes for an easy life. But I just know the reason I'll be given for getting them will be this 1 in 3 thing.
I think its important to try get a grasp on this because it feels like this 1 in 3 will be the stick used to get people testing regularly because it sounds scary.
The last paper I read on this was a study of studies. After discussing the fact that "asymptomatic" is quite a large grey area because no one defines it in quite the same way, they came to the conclusion that true asymptomatic cases are 17% (about 1 in 6). Of those that are truly asymptomatic, their ability to spread is much reduced because their lack of symptoms kills off some of the spreading mechanisms, making them less likely to spread (about 40% less likely).
https://jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/full/10.3138/j...
that is the paper, I think, they also note that asymptomatic was found to be higher in aged/in-care populations than young populations. They show asymptomatic rate between 4 and 40% but once they sort the wheat from the chaff on how to define it, conclude that asymptomatic cases are about 1 in 6.
But, I don't think I've seen anything beyond that yet that has truly got a handle on asymptomatic spread so how anyone, really, can come out with definitive statements like 1 in 3, eludes me. Of course, as described above, the NHS's 1 in 3 misses off the other half of the story in that even if you are asymptomatic, your ability to actually spread it is likely much reduced.
It's a good job that Government have commissioned such thorough research on a key pillar of their argument that might support spaffing nearly the entire NHS budget again on testing people who aren't ill...As you seem to have one of the better grasps of the data, do you think it is possible to figure out where the NHS 1 in 3 are asymptomatic and can spread it comes from?
This has come about because our friends down the road (who seemingly revel in being able to cart the whole family off to a testing centre at the drop of a hat when one of them gets a sniffle) has just ordered her LFT tests and is straight on our cases about "have we ordered any yet?". My answer is of course no, as there is little need. But I'm telling her yes for an easy life. But I just know the reason I'll be given for getting them will be this 1 in 3 thing.
I think its important to try get a grasp on this because it feels like this 1 in 3 will be the stick used to get people testing regularly because it sounds scary.
The last paper I read on this was a study of studies. After discussing the fact that "asymptomatic" is quite a large grey area because no one defines it in quite the same way, they came to the conclusion that true asymptomatic cases are 17% (about 1 in 6). Of those that are truly asymptomatic, their ability to spread is much reduced because their lack of symptoms kills off some of the spreading mechanisms, making them less likely to spread (about 40% less likely).
https://jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/full/10.3138/j...
that is the paper, I think, they also note that asymptomatic was found to be higher in aged/in-care populations than young populations. They show asymptomatic rate between 4 and 40% but once they sort the wheat from the chaff on how to define it, conclude that asymptomatic cases are about 1 in 6.
But, I don't think I've seen anything beyond that yet that has truly got a handle on asymptomatic spread so how anyone, really, can come out with definitive statements like 1 in 3, eludes me. Of course, as described above, the NHS's 1 in 3 misses off the other half of the story in that even if you are asymptomatic, your ability to actually spread it is likely much reduced.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/whats-new
The way cases are reported has changed. Cases that have been identified through a positive rapid lateral flow test will be removed for people who took Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests within 3 days that were all negative. Cases of this type that were previously reported were removed from the cumulative total, reducing the total by 8,010. Newly reported numbers of cases for the UK and England were unaffected by the removal of these. Historic published date totals have not been changed.
The way cases are reported has changed. Cases that have been identified through a positive rapid lateral flow test will be removed for people who took Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests within 3 days that were all negative. Cases of this type that were previously reported were removed from the cumulative total, reducing the total by 8,010. Newly reported numbers of cases for the UK and England were unaffected by the removal of these. Historic published date totals have not been changed.
the-photographer said:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/whats-new
The way cases are reported has changed. Cases that have been identified through a positive rapid lateral flow test will be removed for people who took Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests within 3 days that were all negative. Cases of this type that were previously reported were removed from the cumulative total, reducing the total by 8,010. Newly reported numbers of cases for the UK and England were unaffected by the removal of these. Historic published date totals have not been changed.
Does this mean we are going to see a constant changing of the number of recent cases now, as LFT tests that are logged are later removed once PCR confirms they are not a positive case?The way cases are reported has changed. Cases that have been identified through a positive rapid lateral flow test will be removed for people who took Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests within 3 days that were all negative. Cases of this type that were previously reported were removed from the cumulative total, reducing the total by 8,010. Newly reported numbers of cases for the UK and England were unaffected by the removal of these. Historic published date totals have not been changed.
RSTurboPaul said:
Does this mean we are going to see a constant changing of the number of recent cases now, as LFT tests that are logged are later removed once PCR confirms they are not a positive case?
Seems like it. The graph will go up & down like a deranged yo-yo for months....I wonder how this will affect the bat-flu map; currently my area has gone from suppressed data to 4 cases, apparently a 100% rise in a week. Interestingly, there are many school kids in the area.....
Other areas that have 'spiked' are full of care homes, hospitals & prisons. Oh, & the colour coding on the map appears to have changed, making even low case areas look scary & dangerous: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/interactiv...
Biker 1 said:
Seems like it. The graph will go up & down like a deranged yo-yo for months....
I wonder how this will affect the bat-flu map; currently my area has gone from suppressed data to 4 cases, apparently a 100% rise in a week. Interestingly, there are many school kids in the area.....
Other areas that have 'spiked' are full of care homes, hospitals & prisons. Oh, & the colour coding on the map appears to have changed, making even low case areas look scary & dangerous: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/interactiv...
The colour coding on the map is exactly as I remember it having been for months.I wonder how this will affect the bat-flu map; currently my area has gone from suppressed data to 4 cases, apparently a 100% rise in a week. Interestingly, there are many school kids in the area.....
Other areas that have 'spiked' are full of care homes, hospitals & prisons. Oh, & the colour coding on the map appears to have changed, making even low case areas look scary & dangerous: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/interactiv...
Otispunkmeyer said:
Elysium
As you seem to have one of the better grasps of the data, do you think it is possible to figure out where the NHS 1 in 3 are asymptomatic and can spread it comes from?
This has come about because our friends down the road (who seemingly revel in being able to cart the whole family off to a testing centre at the drop of a hat when one of them gets a sniffle) has just ordered her LFT tests and is straight on our cases about "have we ordered any yet?". My answer is of course no, as there is little need. But I'm telling her yes for an easy life. But I just know the reason I'll be given for getting them will be this 1 in 3 thing.
I think its important to try get a grasp on this because it feels like this 1 in 3 will be the stick used to get people testing regularly because it sounds scary.
The last paper I read on this was a study of studies. After discussing the fact that "asymptomatic" is quite a large grey area because no one defines it in quite the same way, they came to the conclusion that true asymptomatic cases are 17% (about 1 in 6). Of those that are truly asymptomatic, their ability to spread is much reduced because their lack of symptoms kills off some of the spreading mechanisms, making them less likely to spread (about 40% less likely).
https://jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/full/10.3138/j...
that is the paper, I think, they also note that asymptomatic was found to be higher in aged/in-care populations than young populations. They show asymptomatic rate between 4 and 40% but once they sort the wheat from the chaff on how to define it, conclude that asymptomatic cases are about 1 in 6.
But, I don't think I've seen anything beyond that yet that has truly got a handle on asymptomatic spread so how anyone, really, can come out with definitive statements like 1 in 3, eludes me. Of course, as described above, the NHS's 1 in 3 misses off the other half of the story in that even if you are asymptomatic, your ability to actually spread it is likely much reduced.
I saw this on Twitter today. The maths is beyond me but the author claims it’s more like 1 in 34: As you seem to have one of the better grasps of the data, do you think it is possible to figure out where the NHS 1 in 3 are asymptomatic and can spread it comes from?
This has come about because our friends down the road (who seemingly revel in being able to cart the whole family off to a testing centre at the drop of a hat when one of them gets a sniffle) has just ordered her LFT tests and is straight on our cases about "have we ordered any yet?". My answer is of course no, as there is little need. But I'm telling her yes for an easy life. But I just know the reason I'll be given for getting them will be this 1 in 3 thing.
I think its important to try get a grasp on this because it feels like this 1 in 3 will be the stick used to get people testing regularly because it sounds scary.
The last paper I read on this was a study of studies. After discussing the fact that "asymptomatic" is quite a large grey area because no one defines it in quite the same way, they came to the conclusion that true asymptomatic cases are 17% (about 1 in 6). Of those that are truly asymptomatic, their ability to spread is much reduced because their lack of symptoms kills off some of the spreading mechanisms, making them less likely to spread (about 40% less likely).
https://jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/full/10.3138/j...
that is the paper, I think, they also note that asymptomatic was found to be higher in aged/in-care populations than young populations. They show asymptomatic rate between 4 and 40% but once they sort the wheat from the chaff on how to define it, conclude that asymptomatic cases are about 1 in 6.
But, I don't think I've seen anything beyond that yet that has truly got a handle on asymptomatic spread so how anyone, really, can come out with definitive statements like 1 in 3, eludes me. Of course, as described above, the NHS's 1 in 3 misses off the other half of the story in that even if you are asymptomatic, your ability to actually spread it is likely much reduced.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Norman-Fenton...
I should note that he is a member of the HART group, so not neutral:
https://www.hartgroup.org/bios/
Edited by Elysium on Friday 9th April 21:25
They've been randomly testing thousands of people on a regular basis to get a picture of geographical spreads. I was one of the many that have been tested as part of the random testing, and it included an online questionnaire about various aspects of my health, both generally and and illness symptoms at the time.
Somewhere those results will have been collated.
Somewhere those results will have been collated.
Elysium said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
Elysium
As you seem to have one of the better grasps of the data, do you think it is possible to figure out where the NHS 1 in 3 are asymptomatic and can spread it comes from?
This has come about because our friends down the road (who seemingly revel in being able to cart the whole family off to a testing centre at the drop of a hat when one of them gets a sniffle) has just ordered her LFT tests and is straight on our cases about "have we ordered any yet?". My answer is of course no, as there is little need. But I'm telling her yes for an easy life. But I just know the reason I'll be given for getting them will be this 1 in 3 thing.
I think its important to try get a grasp on this because it feels like this 1 in 3 will be the stick used to get people testing regularly because it sounds scary.
The last paper I read on this was a study of studies. After discussing the fact that "asymptomatic" is quite a large grey area because no one defines it in quite the same way, they came to the conclusion that true asymptomatic cases are 17% (about 1 in 6). Of those that are truly asymptomatic, their ability to spread is much reduced because their lack of symptoms kills off some of the spreading mechanisms, making them less likely to spread (about 40% less likely).
https://jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/full/10.3138/j...
that is the paper, I think, they also note that asymptomatic was found to be higher in aged/in-care populations than young populations. They show asymptomatic rate between 4 and 40% but once they sort the wheat from the chaff on how to define it, conclude that asymptomatic cases are about 1 in 6.
But, I don't think I've seen anything beyond that yet that has truly got a handle on asymptomatic spread so how anyone, really, can come out with definitive statements like 1 in 3, eludes me. Of course, as described above, the NHS's 1 in 3 misses off the other half of the story in that even if you are asymptomatic, your ability to actually spread it is likely much reduced.
I saw this on Twitter today. The maths is beyond me but the author claims it’s more like 1 in 34: As you seem to have one of the better grasps of the data, do you think it is possible to figure out where the NHS 1 in 3 are asymptomatic and can spread it comes from?
This has come about because our friends down the road (who seemingly revel in being able to cart the whole family off to a testing centre at the drop of a hat when one of them gets a sniffle) has just ordered her LFT tests and is straight on our cases about "have we ordered any yet?". My answer is of course no, as there is little need. But I'm telling her yes for an easy life. But I just know the reason I'll be given for getting them will be this 1 in 3 thing.
I think its important to try get a grasp on this because it feels like this 1 in 3 will be the stick used to get people testing regularly because it sounds scary.
The last paper I read on this was a study of studies. After discussing the fact that "asymptomatic" is quite a large grey area because no one defines it in quite the same way, they came to the conclusion that true asymptomatic cases are 17% (about 1 in 6). Of those that are truly asymptomatic, their ability to spread is much reduced because their lack of symptoms kills off some of the spreading mechanisms, making them less likely to spread (about 40% less likely).
https://jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/full/10.3138/j...
that is the paper, I think, they also note that asymptomatic was found to be higher in aged/in-care populations than young populations. They show asymptomatic rate between 4 and 40% but once they sort the wheat from the chaff on how to define it, conclude that asymptomatic cases are about 1 in 6.
But, I don't think I've seen anything beyond that yet that has truly got a handle on asymptomatic spread so how anyone, really, can come out with definitive statements like 1 in 3, eludes me. Of course, as described above, the NHS's 1 in 3 misses off the other half of the story in that even if you are asymptomatic, your ability to actually spread it is likely much reduced.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Norman-Fenton...
I should note that he is a member of the HART group, so not neutral:
https://www.hartgroup.org/bios/
Edited by Elysium on Friday 9th April 21:25
If you just read the abstract though they say 1 in 34 by the governments own numbers worked back and forth. They say that for 1 in 3 to be correct the infection rate needs to be 11 times higher than the ONS claim of 0.71% . If the ONS are correct then that means at most slightly less than 3% of cases are true asymptomatic (1 in 34). Like you, need to read the maths, but they're claiming the official data don't add up to make both the claim of 1 in 3 and 0.71% true.
But they themselves, from their own analysis, are then claiming 1 in 19 as true asymptomatic. Which might be more realistic.
Either way 1 in 3 just doesn't seem right at all. If it was I should probably have had covid by now as I meet about 10 people a week and spend significant time in an office with them. By their numbers 3 of those people should have spread covid to me. Or is that too simplistic?
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 9th April 21:52
ETA. Too simplistic! As they do explain why in the paper.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 9th April 21:57
Otispunkmeyer said:
Either way 1 in 3 just doesn't seem right at all. If it was I should probably have had covid by now as I meet about 10 people a week and spend significant time in an office with them. By their numbers 3 of those people should have spread covid to me. Or is that too simplistic?
Measuring this is very difficult. There is also a difficulty in terminology:Asymptomatic is often used to mean people infected who never develop any symptoms at all.
Pre-symptomatic is generally used to mean people infected who are not symptomatic at a particular point, but eventually develop symptoms.
Some authors also discuss "minimally symptomatic" which is infected people who have symptoms, but do not recognise them as such, or regard them as innocuous and irrelevant.
Because of the difficulty of identifying these groups, who by their nature, may not participate in testing, estimates are widely variable. Additionally, many studies lump asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic together for this purpose. The reliability of classification has changed with time, as knowledge of symptoms and access to testing has changed. While early studies suggested that up to 80% of cases were asymptomatic, more recent work suggests a range of 17-30% only are asymptomatic - i.e. the majority of infections cause symptoms at some point.
One rigorous analysis of the literature (albeit a few months old now) https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=...
illustrates the problem, with wide ranges for the estimates of asymptomatic proportion, and the proportion of transmission attributable to asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic spread. Fig 4 shows the estimates, which range from 0 to 80%.
In short, the data is a mess, with lots of discrepancies and contradictions - although quite likely there has been a lot of misclassification and bias by over-representation of "high profile" clusters and outbreaks, which may not be the normal mode of transmission.
Some more recent studies have tried to combine multiple source data, e.g. hospital admissions, antibody testing surveys, as well as testing. e.g. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/9/e2019716118.sho... which estimates around 50% of transmission is from asymptomatic/pre-symptomatic people.; and modelling approaches e.g. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/f... which estimates around 54% are due to asymptomatic/pre-symptomatic transmission. Similar figures are shown in more direct small contact tracing studies - e.g. a small multi-site Chinese study gives a similar sort of ballpark for lumped asymptomatic/pre-symptomatic cases https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/1... - in this case, 9% of transmissions were from asymptomatic people, and 35% were from pre-symptomatic people - giving a lumped total of about 44%.
Yeah this is my feeling
The data just isn't in a state to be useful and you could pull just about anything you wanted from it and have it be just as valid as the the next set of researchers.
Just comes back around to how they can push the 1 in 3 message when clearly the data isn't there to support it because the data is so messy it can be butchered to support any number of different claims.
The data just isn't in a state to be useful and you could pull just about anything you wanted from it and have it be just as valid as the the next set of researchers.
Just comes back around to how they can push the 1 in 3 message when clearly the data isn't there to support it because the data is so messy it can be butchered to support any number of different claims.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff